CSIRO low carb diet. Impressed that the study is over 2 years. 10% weight drop on a diet with 60% healthy fats and only 70 grams of carbs. These results may align with the belief that fats and proteins make us feel fuller for longer, whilst processed carbs (ie those stripped of fibre and fats, with additives and industrial processing) work to increase hunger.

Unfortunately this research is being used to promote a commercial (carb-based) product. A profit motive in research raises questions in my mind about possible bias. And surprised that they are suggesting skim milk and low fat yoghurt in their diet plan given other research I’ve read on the health effects of these products in comparison to the full fat equivalents.

But overall, very interesting research.

http://thenewdaily.com.au/life/wellbeing/2017/03/06/csiro-low-carb-diet/?utm_source=Responsys&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=20170307_TND

Hi bigbooty,

Do you have any resources on this that you can point me to, and that you’d recommend? I’m interested in learning more.

If we allow special interests to fund or provide benefits to our leaders, our advisors, our researchers, etc then we should never be surprised when the outcome is corruption.

The calories-in-calories-out model is the widely accepted Western way of looking at food when looking to respond to obesity. It is officially endorsed as being an unchallengeable truth. Eat less, move more, and you are guaranteed to lose weight. Simple. Great in theory. So why does it continually fail? And why IMO is it part of the problem of Western obesity?

Why? Because thinking in terms of calories, the average person would never touch the high fat Mediterranean diet-style foods, with all their fatty (and therefore high calorie) avocados, nuts, seeds, olive oils, oily fish, etc. Yet in practice the Mediterranean diet outperforms the Western recommended low fat diet, long term, in not just health outcomes but also in obesity control.

Here is reported research promulgated by an ‘expert’, ‘proving’ that a burger (go Maccas) is better than a mediterranian style salad with fish, olive oil, nuts and seeds. He even acknowledges that the salad has better nutrition. So why does the expert say the burger is ‘better’ for us than the salad? Solely because it has less calories. OMG. How inane is that? It’s like saying that eating sugar is better for us than eating a salad, and will better help us lose weight, as long as the quantity of sugar has less calories than the salad. Good luck with that thinking.

Then this ‘expert’ advises us to have a diet soda with the meal. Whatever happened to drinking water when thirsty, and why do these health ‘experts’ never seem to recommend that?

http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/health/diet/forget-kale-heres-proof-burgers-are-actually-better-than-superfood-salads/news-story/e122b3a1635ae1262b7363219dacb298

Thanks bigbooty,

Leaders progressively lose ability to influence me when they don’t respect our intelligence, or capability for independent thought, and expect us to blindly believe what they say is true simply because it is said by them.

Situations of health and weight loss, at least seen from where I sit, are full of situations of uncertainty. Where there is uncertainty, it seems respectful of everyone’s intelligence to present a theory alongside the evidence which is consistent and inconsistent with that theory. Even more respectful is to do this in situations of apparent certainty.

This balanced and respectful stance is not what I am generally seeing from our authorities.

When we are willing to challenge dominant paradigms, including our own, and prefer evidence-based enquiry to blind belief, then that seems to be evidence of healthy, active and critical thought. When a strong, critical stance is seen as evidence of a nut case conspiracy, then maybe it’s timely to challenge the interpretation, instead of the stance?

Thanks Cinque,

The research design doesn’t seem so well suited to assessing the impact of nutrient type (sugars, saturated fats). Although a diet high in sugar, presumably, is a nutrient wasteland.

Rather this research seemed more focused on seeking to assess the detimental impact of high energy eating on memory and learning. The results seem to align with research showing that low energy intake (eg fasting) boosts neural regeneration and improves memory and learning. Eg

https://news.usc.edu/82959/diet-that-mimics-fasting-appears-to-slow-aging/

Dr. Helena Popovic has written the book ‘Neuroslimming’ which I happened to come across in the library and found quite interesting. Here is a link to a podcast interview with Dr. Popovic, featured on the Australian Broadcasting Corporation Radio National program ‘All in the Mind’

http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/allinthemind/diet-on-the-brain/6867030

An excerpt: “Only a 5 day junk food bender revealed impaired memory effect in studies on rats… creates an inflammatory state in the brain…reduction in nootropic factors and cognition since less able to form new neural connections.”

Here’s a link to the ‘Neuroslimming’ book:

http://www.winningatslimming.com/neuroslimming-let-your-brain-change-your-body/

Here’s another article related to fructose entitled ‘Is Fructose the New Booze?’ about how fructose causes the same effects of alcoholic liver disease except that fructose overload doesn’t cause us to fall down and go to sleep (well, not most anyway, though I can kind of relate to that sensation in relation to overcomsumption of it!)

https://www.greathealthguide.com.au/nutrition-fructose-is-the-new-booze/

Below is a link to a randomized controlled trial studying the effects of inulin on weight loss and visceral fat. One interesting point is that though both groups (one ingested cellulose and the other ingested inulin) shed roughly same amounts of weight during the weight loss phas, those who ingested inulin continued to shed a considerable amount of weight during the ‘maintenance’ phase and the cellulose group did not. The study also indicates that what is found in animal studies is also applicable to humans, which is that inulin serves to reduce visceral fat.

https://nutritionandmetabolism.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12986-015-0033-2

Early days, but soft drinks linked to dementia & stroke.
The researchers point out that both sugar and artificially-sweetened drink consumption has been linked, in previous research, to “cardiometabolic risk factors,” such as high blood pressure, high blood sugar, and abnormal cholesterol – all of which increase the risk of stroke and dementia.

http://www.ctvnews.ca/health/two-new-studies-suggest-links-between-soft-drinks-dementia-and-stroke-1.3377659

“Liquidized” foods are more easily digested by the body (cell walls, etc, already broken down/enzymes more efficient) & your body doesn’t need to expend as much energy to digest them since (less chewing, etc). All that results in a greater caloric uptake for liquidized food vice the basic ingredients.
Unfortunely, don’t have a good reference to back that up, just studies comparing raw to cooked food, & comparing energy extracted for some foods vice available calories.
“Discrepancy between the Atwater Factor predicted & empirically measured energy value of almonds in human diets”. American journal of clinical nutrition 96(2) 2012 296-301

Good morning Cinque and bigbooty and thank you for your replies. I note both of you mention portion control or over eating with these machines, some thing that I had not considered.
I am still not yet convinced but one of the reasons I posed the question was that my daughter recently bought one. I will chew over !!! your replies but again thanks for your comments and research.
Good luck out there.

The study cited below relates to rats who were genetically modified to be obese and how the effect of altering the gut biome through prebiotics lead to reductions obesity levels, reduced plasma triglyceride levels, muscle lipid infiltration, adipose tissue mass, and oxidative stress and lead to higher leptin sensitivity (Everard et al 2011 p. 10).

Also interesting is that this study notes previous studies revealed that diet induced obesity caused a bloom in gram negative baceria Desulfovibrionaceae; a bacteria that was found to be less prevalent in the prebiotic treated mice in the study cited below.

http://ot-ds.sipr.ucl.ac.be/cps/ucl/doc/ir-ldri/images/Everard_Diabetes_2011.pdf

Looks like there may be a genetic/enzyme reason why people gain weight in their middle age. Inhibiting the enzyme may prevent weight gain: http://www.foxnews.com/health/2017/05/05/gaining-weight-in-middle-age-its-this-molecules-fault-scientists-say.html

Gee I wonder if Big Food knows that theyre doing that? ha ha ha. Answer, of course they know. Why would you put 50% sugar into a bottle of vinegar? Crazy but that’s the worst example Ive come across of added sugar into a product that shouldn’t have any sugar content.

There are many comments on this site about the inaccuracy of fitness trackers. Here is another one: http://www.msn.com/en-us/health/healthtrending/fitness-trackers-dont-accurately-count-calories-burned-study-says/ar-BBBuvRL?li=AA5LBhu&ocid=spartandhp

Thanks Cinque, that’s interesting. I’ve always found the taste of pork unpleasant, now I know why – it’s my genes.